Chelsea Manning for Senate?

[Mgderf]

I'm confused.
What eye color do left-handed trannys have again?

Purple.
I believe the answer you're looking for is purple.

 

[BugI02]

I'm confused.
What eye color do left-handed trannys have again?

The way the world is going, is it possible Trump was grabbing (apparent) women by the ***** just to make sure they actually had one?

 

[jamil]

The way the world is going, is it possible Trump was grabbing (apparent) women by the ***** just to make sure they actually had one?

Heah. It’s purple and all, but reminds me that the nonsense part of today’s gender issues is what the world is becoming. There aren’t really any more real transsexuals. It looks like it’s about the same rate over a long time.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Felon = can't vote

If they can't vote, how can a felon run?

Depends on the state. No idea about what state they are running in, but in IN as long as you aren't currently locked up you can vote.

Sex is biological. Gender and gender roles are entirely a social construct. Why don't men wear dresses? Why don't women wear suits & ties? In the European renaissance men wore a significant amount of makeup. How much do men wear today? These are all issues that are created by culture and society, not by biology.

And you may well be right. Someone who is extremely uncomfortable with their own body may well be suffering from a medical disorder. I think this may well be correct, but I am not convinced it is entirely so. I am thinking the answer may well be somewhere in the middle, where you are right about some people and I am dexter about others. But I don't think either one of us is 100% correct, or 100% wrong. Perhaps in our lifetimes further study will prove me sinister, or right.

I think some on the left go too far on pushing the descriptive words regarding people. I believe he and she, him and her, etc, should refer to at least appearing sexually male or female. Those words should be tied to sex as most people with then have a clear understanding during speech about what the discussion entails. If a transgendered person who was born male but transitions all appearances to female, like Caitlyn Jenner then I have no problem referring to that person as "her", "she" or any other feminine descriptor. However, should Hulk Hogan all of a sudden want to be referred to in the feminine without taking the steps to change his appearance, then NO, I do not agree with that. These words ARE descriptors and do have specific connotations. I wouldn't describe a 5'0" woman as tall, nor would I describe a 6'9" man as short. I don't care what they want in this case, the words tall and short are subjective, but within our society and others these words have meaning. Perhaps in 400 years if the average male height is 8'5" THEN a 6'9" man will be short, but today he is tall.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Back to your regularly scheduled hushing.

I'll have to disagree a bit, gender isn't a "social construct" at least up until recent times. Gender roles and how society thinks the two genders should act/dress/etc are.

Simply being more comfortable in the gender roles and such of the other gender I don't think is a mental disorder. Believing you were born in the wrong body, and wishing to surgically alter your body IMO is probably one. And yes I understand the argument about plastic surgery/sex change. One is altering what you have to make it appear more attractive in your or others opinion. It's not attempting to actually change what it is.

To use your left handed reasoning, it would be like someone who is left or right handed and believes that they were born the wrong handed and wishes to cut off their dominant hand. Or as I mentioned above Body integrity identity disorder.

And yes descriptors are subjective, I know a couple of women that while they may not think that 5' is tall, 5' 4" would be tall to them. And one who would probably consider 5' tall. Do you think that let's say Andre the giant would have considered a 6' 9" man short? A bit more below.

Doug,

I understand the historical context of left-handedness. I find it not applicable because the discomfort that I'm talking about is ultimately not a social construct. I agree that a lot of the stigma for transgendered people is a social construct, which both sides of the issue contribute to. But the part that isn't a social construct, and I'll get just a little graphic for emphasis, imagine being a guy, and being uncomfortable with having a dick. As far as I can tell from the literature on it that I've read, it's not for social reasons. Women's brains are different from men's brains, and I can't say I understand the scientific language about what makes them different. But I can understand enough from those studies to know what matters. There's a physical component to it.

Transgenders' brains have many of the characteristics of the other. So for a male who feels like he's a woman, there's likely a physical reason for that. And it's likely because his brain is more similar to whatever is different about a woman's brain from a man's. So this dysphoria is not a social construct. It's that, for whatever reason, a small percentage of people have developed the brain similar to the sex opposite of what they are physically. So maybe it's more like this. What if you're a woman, and as you developed, you grew a penis, and you're really uncomfortable having it now. You're supposed to have a vagina. That you're supposed to have a vagina isn't a social construct if it's wired into your brain. Of course not exactly like that growing one after birth, because these people are born with the parts they have. But in terms of how they would feel dysphoric about it, it's more like that than it is feeling dysphoric because of other people's expectations.

So the condition is not normal, but also it does not make them bad. And of course, there is a lot of social constructions that compound the physical condition. And you add in all the social stigma of being different, and social constructs of how you're supposed to be given the parts you have, and it's no wonder the suicide rate is 40%.

And that brings me to the question T.Lex asked. I've mentioned before that I have a cousin who is a transsexual. And honestly I don't know him/her very well at all. I didn't refer to his or her sex/gender here because I honestly don't know. We've talked at funerals, basically. That's the only time extended family seems to gather. I last talked to this person at my Dad's funeral years ago. All I know is that my dad told me long ago that my cousin got a sex change operation. He never told me my cousin's biological sex. And, I can't ask. I mean, it's just not something you talk about at funerals. And I can't go by my cousin's first name because it's one of those names that could go either way--no, it's not Pat.

I say this now because researching this to see if what you were saying is true, has changed my opinion on it. After researching it, I'd say I don't believe you're right, that it's mostly a social construct. If all social constructs were dissolved, the real transgendered people would still be dysphoric about their physical sex versus the sex they feel like they are. But I don't believe I was right either. And I'm starting to rethink my position on treatment. Surgery doesn't solve the problem--nothing really does--it sort of masks it and brings about a tolerable existence for some. It's still a very high suicide rate after surgery and it's not clear that that's all about the social stigma. But the clinical literature makes it seem fairly clear that it does help some of them cope.

So, now, if I did know my cousin's actual sex, and he or she wanted to be called by the other pronoun, knowing what I know now, I'd use it. It's not my cousin's fault that nature played a cruel joke. It doesn't do him or her any good to sit here and demand precision in the words I use. So I'm going to disagree with people like Ben Shapiro on this.

But something I will agree with him about, if you're a dude, but say you're a transgender woman, and you look like a dude, act like a dude in every way, in every mannerism you behave just like a dude, beard, gruffness, etcetera, but you just dress like and call yourself a woman, I'm probably going to suspect that you're not actually a transgender person. Maybe you have something else going on. And much of that may be due to social constructs, but the social constructs which has men generally behaving masculine, and women generally behaving famine, have evolved and are wired into us. So much that it's part of biology too. It works across time and across cultures. And that's not likely to change no matter how much social justice wants it to.

I'll have to disagree, that the majority if not all of the discomfort is based in social constructs. Yes it is quite possible/probable that their brains are wired differently. But the discomfort comes from social "norms", if you have x parts, you should act in x way. And there is social pressure to do so.

You even say that you believe in it, when you say that if you're physically male and act/dress/etc like a male you should call yourself a man, no matter what they believe they should be. And you say that it is evolved and wired into us, but you also argue that they are wired differently. I know a woman, biological born that way woman, that has her hair cut like a man, dresses like a man, and has quite a few male mannerisms. It's not uncommon for people that don't know her to refer to her in the male pronouns, I was out for dinner with her and the waitress referred to her as sir, at my wife's bridal shower several of the Aunt's asked "who's that man"? Should I refer to her as a him even though she identifies as a woman? If not why shouldn't a man who acts/dresses/etc as a man, but identifies as a female be referred to as such?

 

[jamil]

I'll have to disagree, that the majority if not all of the discomfort is based in social constructs. Yes it is quite possible/probable that their brains are wired differently. But the discomfort comes from social "norms", if you have x parts, you should act in x way. And there is social pressure to do so.

You even say that you believe in it, when you say that if you're physically male and act/dress/etc like a male you should call yourself a man, no matter what they believe they should be. And you say that it is evolved and wired into us, but you also argue that they are wired differently. I know a woman, biological born that way woman, that has her hair cut like a man, dresses like a man, and has quite a few male mannerisms. It's not uncommon for people that don't know her to refer to her in the male pronouns, I was out for dinner with her and the waitress referred to her as sir, at my wife's bridal shower several of the Aunt's asked "who's that man"? Should I refer to her as a him even though she identifies as a woman? If not why shouldn't a man who acts/dresses/etc as a man, but identifies as a female be referred to as such?

I'm not sure we're talking about the same things because what you say I said isn't really what I said.

So, I'll try to isolate the thing I'm saying more, because it's actually a very narrow portion of the spectrum. The thing I think now, is that there are a very small subset of people who have a biological condition that I'll just refer to as "transsexual". They feel dysphoric about their sex--not entirely because "normal" people identify with their own sex and they don't. But because there is apparently a biological component.

The studies which suggest that transsexuals have the brain of the other has caused me to rethink some things. If there is a biological component that causes the underlying dysphoria, that goes beyond just a social construct and even "identity". The part that I'm talking about is a person's biological sex versus what is biological about the difference between a male's brain and a female's. I would say that gender roles are mostly a social construct, even though there is a biological component even to that. Sex is biological. And if your brain is such that you feel out of sync with your sex, that dysphoria isn't purely because of social stigmas of what is societally "normal" for people. The basis of the dysphoria is biological, and the stigma of being different from other people who identify with the sex they are, that exacerbates the problem, but is not the root of the problem.

In other words, if you were to isolate these people such that their condition is "normal", and they'd still be dysphoric about their sex. I would not include everyone who says they're transgender in that statement. To narrow down the subset to what I'm talking about, I would exclude the following: cross-dressers, females with masculine preferences, males with feminine preferences, gays, lesbians.

Some of those categories may be biological too. There's some evidence that when and how much testosterone is present during prenatal development determines how closely you might behave feminine or masculine. Most boys tend to like to play the way boys play, and girls tend to like to play the way girls play. That transcends cultures and time. So it's apparent that the social constructs that have formed have a basis that is biological. Researchers are finding some predictability when studying testosterone during development. Tomboys are at least a little predictable. So are effeminate males. Most people fall in the normal range of testosterone levels for their sex during development. The ones who aren't, to the extent that they aren't, become at least a little socially outcast.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same things because what you say I said isn't really what I said.

So, I'll try to isolate the thing I'm saying more, because it's actually a very narrow portion of the spectrum. The thing I think now, is that there are a very small subset of people who have a biological condition that I'll just refer to as "transsexual". They feel dysphoric about their sex--not entirely because "normal" people identify with their own sex and they don't. But because there is apparently a biological component.

The studies which suggest that transsexuals have the brain of the other has caused me to rethink some things. If there is a biological component that causes the underlying dysphoria, that goes beyond just a social construct and even "identity". The part that I'm talking about is a person's biological sex versus what is biological about the difference between a male's brain and a female's. I would say that gender roles are mostly a social construct, even though there is a biological component even to that. Sex is biological. And if your brain is such that you feel out of sync with your sex, that dysphoria isn't purely because of social stigmas of what is societally "normal" for people. The basis of the dysphoria is biological, and the stigma of being different from other people who identify with the sex they are, that exacerbates the problem, but is not the root of the problem.

In other words, if you were to isolate these people such that their condition is "normal", and they'd still be dysphoric about their sex. I would not include everyone who says they're transgender in that statement. To narrow down the subset to what I'm talking about, I would exclude the following: cross-dressers, females with masculine preferences, males with feminine preferences, gays, lesbians.

Some of those categories may be biological too. There's some evidence that when and how much testosterone is present during prenatal development determines how closely you might behave feminine or masculine. Most boys tend to like to play the way boys play, and girls tend to like to play the way girls play. That transcends cultures and time. So it's apparent that the social constructs that have formed have a basis that is biological. Researchers are finding some predictability when studying testosterone during development. Tomboys are at least a little predictable. So are effeminate males. Most people fall in the normal range of testosterone levels for their sex during development. The ones who aren't, to the extent that they aren't, become at least a little socially outcast.

I'll agree that there is most likely a biological component to it, I disagree that the dysphoria is mainly/mostly caused by it. There is pressure to "act your sex" although with tomboys and effeminate men to a lesser degree that has decreased. You agreed with Libertarian that someone should make changes to their appearance if they wish to be called their non birth sex. Why? The woman I referred to is more manly then quite a few men, why shouldn't a man who believes they should be the other gender be called what they prefer if they act/dress/have the mannerisms of her? Why should they be forced to alter their appearance/mannerisms? Perhaps as a physical male, they feel that they really are a tomboy woman? And the reverse if they are physically female? That is what I meant that you agree with it, you believe that they should follow the social norms of how they should dress/act. according to how they wish to be addressed.

I'll bring up Body Integrity Identity Disorder again, since no one that I've seen has commented on it. It's the belief that they as an able bodied person that they are actually a physical handicapped one and are born wrong. Usually expressed by a desire to remove a limb, become paralyzed. Why isn't the wish to have your sexual organs physically changed be considered the same? Both are the desire to alter your normal functioning parts of your body to match what your brain believes you are.

 

[jamil]

Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. I did not say that people should change their appearance if they want to be called the other. And I only applied it to a narrow set of people. I will restate what I’m saying more succinctly:

If a male is unhappy with having a dick and really wants to have a *****, because he is dysphoric about having a dick, surgery may—MAY—be the treatment that helps that person—not all—cope best. And so with dysphoric females. There are no implications intended beyond that. It doesn’t apply to other people.



So lets stick to saying what I’m actually saying and not what you’re saying I’m saying.

 

[Dead Duck]

Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. I did not say that people should change their appearance if they want to be called the other. And I only applied it to a narrow set of people. I will restate what I’m saying more succinctly:

You misspelled - Succulently

 

[BugI02]

Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. [snip]

In this case, that might be against The Geneva Convention

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think some on the left go too far on pushing the descriptive words regarding people. I believe he and she, him and her, etc, should refer to at least appearing sexually male or female. Those words should be tied to sex as most people with then have a clear understanding during speech about what the discussion entails. If a transgendered person who was born male but transitions all appearances to female, like Caitlyn Jenner then I have no problem referring to that person as "her", "she" or any other feminine descriptor. However, should Hulk Hogan all of a sudden want to be referred to in the feminine without taking the steps to change his appearance, then NO, I do not agree with that.
Regards,

Doug

PS - Back to your regularly scheduled hushing.

Doug,
But something I will agree with him about, if you're a dude, but say you're a transgender woman, and you look like a dude, act like a dude in every way, in every mannerism you behave just like a dude, beard, gruffness, etcetera, but you just dress like and call yourself a woman, I'm probably going to suspect that you're not actually a transgender person. Maybe you have something else going on. And much of that may be due to social constructs, but the social constructs which has men generally behaving masculine, and women generally behaving famine, have evolved and are wired into us. So much that it's part of biology too. It works across time and across cultures. And that's not likely to change no matter how much social justice wants it to.

Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. I did not say that people should change their appearance if they want to be called the other. And I only applied it to a narrow set of people. I will restate what I’m saying more succinctly:

If a male is unhappy with having a dick and really wants to have a *****, because he is dysphoric about having a dick, surgery may—MAY—be the treatment that helps that person—not all—cope best. And so with dysphoric females. There are no implications intended beyond that. It doesn’t apply to other people.


So lets stick to saying what I’m actually saying and not what you’re saying I’m saying.

If I took your agreement the wrong way, well... That's how it reads to me. If they want to alter their bodies to match what they think they are, it's their right to do so and I wouldn't deny them that right. Although with the suicide rate from the studies I've seen pre or post op have comparable rates. If it's just what's between their legs that is causing the problem, shouldn't the rate drop dramatically? Whether they get altered or not, there is still going to be social repercussions. Would you date a trans pre or post op? If you were dating someone and found out that they were, what do you think your response would be? They generally either have to hide it and hope people don't find out, or get used to a lot of derision/rejection. I've got no problems with them, but I wouldn't date one if I knew, and I'd be pissed if I found out later. I'm guessing that I'm not far outside the norm on this. At my dad's funeral I was reintroduced to a step sibling, she was post op. My reaction was to give her a hug and thank her for coming.

And why not address BIID? It's possible there is a biological component and altering their body to match what they believe might help some of them cope.

 

[Libertarian01]

I just got done reviewing two (2) articles, one mostly on transgenderism, and the other on paraphilias. They are mildly linked issues.

It would appear from the first Psychology Today article on gender dysphoria (https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/gender-dysphoria) that this issue can present at a very early age. One of the most common manifestations among both boys and girls is the desire to dress in attire normally worn by the opposite sex. Another common manifestation is playing games as mostly the opposite sex, so boys may want to do tea and play with dolls while girls may want to play with trucks and climb trees. Deviation from normal dress and play can occur as early as two (2) - four (4) years of age.

The article admits that the causes of gender dysphoria are unknown but suspects that it may be linked to hormonal issues in the womb.

This article seems reasonable in admitting there is still much to be learned and that there are, as Jamil stated upstream, a variety of "subsets" of people with this issue. Of course, it needs to be pointed out that gender dysphoria is only an issue if the manifestations last more than six (6) monthes. There is a normal occasional psychological experimentation by both boys and girls, but those are short lived.

I am wondering, at what age do we start identifying ourselves as male or female socially? Of course we can be put in a blue room or pink room as a baby and it may start on day one (1), but when do we really identify ourselves as male or female? We get put in boys clothes or girls clothes early on by our parents, but what if there were no clothes, like being raised in a nudist colony? The sexual identifiers would be less, because we would be naked all the time and not confined to any type of clothing. I'm just wondering here if the stress placed on a gender dysphoric person would be lessened, or perhaps heightened due to the ever present reminder of male and female genitalia. Or would the lack of clothing be liberating? I don't know.

The article goes on to explain how these young people suffering from gender dysphoria are either bullied and ostracized or go into a self-imposed exile. This could be caused by their understanding, even on a subconscious level, that we are a tribal species and they do "not belong."

There is another article that starts in Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-some-people-transgender/ but can be found entirely herehttps://www.quickanddirtytips.com/health-fitness/mental-health/why-are-some-people-transgender .

From these articles it would appear that current science has some evidence that gender dysphoria is genetic, but the majority of causation is hormonal balances in the womb, with a small amount being influenced by brain structure.

So, I will have to concede that Jamil was correct in defining this originally as a disorder, unless and until it can be proven that the hormonal imbalance in the womb serves some heretofore unknown purpose. I was incorrect in it being a normal albeit rare deviation from the standard as this imbalance apparently serves no useful function nor is it a simple genetic deviation as is a rare eye colour.

However, all that said, with it being caused in the womb there is currently NO "cure" for the problem. Even therapy can only be used to assuage the stress and negative feelings endured by these people, but that does not stop the problems suffered. From the one article average male and female odds there is a .006% chance of the issue occurring in every birth. Multiply that by a current population of 327million and we have about 2 million American citizens suffering from this problem. Even post operation suicide rates seem high among gender dysphoric people, but again there is a spectrum.

There is also another issue that does tag along with this, and while I seek to treat all people with respect and dignity I cannot overlook the issue of certain paraphilias. This is an issue of only achieving sexual gratification by needing stimulation by something other than a consenting partner. You should read the article here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias. What concerns me is if this problem occurs at a greater rate among gender dysphoric people than the normal population. If it does not, then all is balanced. If it does, then this is an issue for concern. Not panic or hysteria, just concern. I say this as it can involve pedophilia. It can also involve sadism, masochism, and objects like underwear. Those do not concern me, but the pedophilia does. However, this is a topic for discussion elsewhere.

We still have much to learn.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BugI02]

Can't we just agree that any one of the Heinz57 genders can be a traitor, so the primary criticism of this things legislative branch ambitions still hold true? [Perhaps this would be a good time to review the thread title. Just sayin']

 

[jamil]

Can't we just agree that any one of the Heinz57 genders can be a traitor, so the primary criticism of this things legislative branch ambitions still hold true? [Perhaps this would be a good time to review the thread title. Just sayin']

Maybe if there’s interest the general discussion on transgender could be carried on in another thread, and those posts here could be moved. The discussion on Manning, the traitor, seems to have ended.

 

[BugI02]

Maybe if there’s interest the general discussion on transgender could be carried on in another thread, and those posts here could be moved. The discussion on Manning, the traitor, seems to have ended.

"Put it on the camp. It's their camp now" - Col. Mike Kirby

 

[Thor]

Nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Dead Duck]

Does buying the right tool instantly make you a mechanic?

Does repeating something over and over make it true?

Does pardoning a person make them less of a traitor?




Call it what you will but praising a mentally ill person and calling them a hero, is INSANE.

 

[jamil]

Does buying the right tool instantly make you a mechanic?

Does repeating something over and over make it true?

Does pardoning a person make them less of a traitor?




Call it what you will but praising a mentally ill person and calling them a hero, is INSANE.

These are the same people who are praising the crazy communist dictator, so...

 

[Mgderf]

I started this thread to discuss the political and legal implications of electing a convicted traitor to elected office.
A persons gender, real or perceived, has no bearing on my decision to oppose this person for ANY elected office.

Members of congress are routinely exposed to classified materials and national secrets.
How could anyone convicted of divulging national secrets be trusted with more secrets once elected?
If they are not to be trusted with such information, how could they possibly do their job?

I understand that the whole transgender discussion is in vogue.
To me, it should not even enter into the discussion, unless it is to consider the mental stability of the candidate.
Once the mental stability comes into question, all other considerations take a back seat.

 

[Thor]

Yes, it's a mentally unstable traitor. That any party would consider running such a thing for public office should spell the death knell of that party. If it does not then it probably is the death knell of the republic.

 

[jamil]

Yes, it's a mentally unstable traitor. That any party would consider running such a thing for public office should spell the death knell of that party. If it does not then it probably is the death knell of the republic.

People said running Roy Moore should be the death of that party. And it’s not like Roy Moore’s sin is even in the same magnitude as treason. But that’s not the point. The point is, both sides are so on their own side they’ll accept the sins of people on their own side while condemning the other’s.

But, probably Manning is in no danger of being elected now anyway. He pissed his side off when he got caught partying with the enemy. Moderates and right-leaning people. Give away US secrets? No problem, go Chelsea. Fraternize with ideological enemies? Banished.